In my previous post on doubt, certainty, and epistemic humility I made the claim that ontology (the study of being) precedes epistemology (the study of knowing). On the most basic level that point appears rather obvious (a being must exist in order to know) but since I meant more than that by the statement –- that without a clear theory of ontology, epistemology is incomplete -- I feel compelled to offer further clarification.
My contention is that until we can understand why we exist and how our existence came into being, we cannot move on to establishing a satisfactory foundation for how we can know. Not all ontological claims lead to the same epistemological outcome, so we must first establish the nature of the knower before we can move on to what can and cannot be know.
To explain the importance of ontological claims about existence for a foundation of epistemology, let’s contrast Christian theism with physicalism, the theory that all entities that exist are purely and completely physical. The two worldviews hold radically different notions of ontology.
Physicalists, for example, cannot embrace the existence of numbers as abstract objects, since they are, by definition, non-physical. The Christian, on the other hand, has no reason for automatically rejecting the idea that the number seven has an existence apart from the physical world. The Christian may even claim to have knowledge – a justified, true belief – that abstract entities exist. The physicalist, of course, would reject the proposition as nonsense. The issue is not resolvable based merely on an epistemological basis since the truth of the matter is based on the actual ontological status of abstract objects; they either exists or they do not.
The differences, however, are not limited solely to what beliefs are formed. Both worldviews hold incompatible and exclusionary ideas about the apparatus that forms beliefs – the mind and/or brain. Christians believe that God has built into them the capacity to know both about the world around them and that he has communicated, through both general and special revelation, certain information about his own nature and personality. If Christian theism is true, then we are designed to know and have sufficient reason to trust our noetic equipment (i.e., brain, spinal cord, senses).
In contrast, physicalism has no specific theory about how our noetic equipment functions. Almost all physicalist, though, accept the naturalist evolutionary adaptive model so we can use that as their starting point. If physicalism (of this variety) is true then our cognitive faculties developed as they did because they had some survival value or reproductive advantage. We have no reason, therefore, to believe that they are reliable. Even if we generously concede that they may be reliable we are only warranted in assuming that our cognitive functions are reliable for adapting us to our environment.
(At this point, the naturalists will start the handwaving and foot-stomping about how we can believe both that physicalism is true and that we can trust our rational faculties. We’ve flogged that dead horse many times in the past and I’m sure we can resurrect it and beat it some more in the future. But this post is aimed at Christian theists who already reject physicalism so that point is superfluous to the main point at hand.)
As we can see, different beliefs about ontology lead us to different starting points for epistemology. The stumbling point, in my opinion, is that many Christians fall for the nonsensical notion that most premises are so interchangeable that they can generally lead to the same basic conclusions. In the absence of 100% certainty, they would argue, we are justified in doubting, or at least being sympathetic to doubts, about certain truth claims, such as the existence of God.
But we cannot change the premise “God exists” to “God might not exist” without coming to absurd and frightening conclusions about the nature of our existence. One of the most laudatory aspects of atheism is that atheist almost never follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion. If God truly didn’t exist then all pretenses to morality or meaning in life could be discarded in favor of hedonism or nihilism. Fortunately, belief is not a prerequisite for being subject to God’s natural law.
It’s one thing, though, for a nonbeliever who has never known Christ to doubt the existence of God; for a Christian to do so borders on the incomprehensible. What is it they were claiming to have known? How can we know Christ and then question whether he exists? If we were to have a personal, intimate relationship with a fellow human and then begin to doubt their existence we would have reason to question our sanity. When Christians express doubts about God, however, it is not evidence that they are insane but that they are falling for a form of self-idolatry.
What distresses me most about this point is that this has to be pointed out to my fellow Bible-believing Christians. My knowledge of scripture is so rudimentary that for me to grasp a concept it has to be rather obvious. Scripture’s view of doubt certainly falls in that category. In fact, I can hardly imagine how it could be any more obvious that God takes a very low view of those who question his existence. In the Gospels the word “doubt” consistently carries a negative connotation since Jesus character and abilities are almost always the object of doubt (see: Matt. 12:38-42, 14:31; Luke 24:38; John 20:27). James even calls the doubting man “double-minded” and compares him to a person who “is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.”
I have to admit that I personally have a difficult time sympathizing with Christians who express doubts about God’s existence. The very idea strikes me as evidence of immaturity and the need for more humility. In holding such a view, though, I am reminded of my own need for humility and to do my duty to, as Jude exhorts, “be merciful to those who doubt.”
My motive for writing these posts, therefore, is not to condemn but to correct. I hope that this will be viewed in light of that intention and help show why the need to set aside such idolatry is needed. For those who disagree, I am open to hearing the arguments for where I err. I believe in submitting to scripture and am willing to hear where I have misunderstood God’s word. In the meantime, I’m left with the reminder that the Bible has a name for people who question the existence of their Creator: fools.
Last point first: I think that admitting our (yes, ultimately sinful and foolish) periods of doubt, and confronting them and examining their causes and solutions, is in one way confession and repentance--another way intellectual honesty--and another way sound apologetic strategy. The ability to sympathize with the weakness of another foolish sinner, having been one myself, is not a nullity, I think . . . your mileage may vary, here.
I have to object to your use of "ontology precedes epistemology" where you should use "ontology and epistemology are mutually dependent" or some such.
You cannot inquire into epistemology without establishing a theory of beings; and you cannot begin to think about the existence and nature of beings without first considering what things in your skull are truths about being and what are fakes.
The thing you should be saying, I think, is that the rationalist project fails *because* they can't leverage epistemology to create ontology, or ontology to create epistemology, because of this mutual dependence. When the knowledge of "what can be known" and the knowledge of "that which is" are *both* contingent, there is no path to certitude or even reliability that does not have some *prior* commitment to being and knowledge.
I submit the requisite commitment is this: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him."
What is needed is neither an anthropocentric theory of being (ontology) nor an anthropocentric theory of knowing (epistemology), but a repentance of anthropocentrism caused by an encounter with revelation from God, and faith in that God so revealed--i.e., a response which *assumes* the God exists, and that the God wishes to be known.
That cannot be reached, established, or defended from any anthropocentric grounds, be they ontological or epistemological; and that is why the epistemic goals of modernism fail, inevitably, to avoid their untangling by the ontological insurgency of postmodernism.
Cheers,
PGE
we cannot change the premise “God exists” to “God might not exist” without coming to absurd and frightening conclusions about the nature of our existence.
Not really frightening, once you get the hang of it. In fact, once one realizes who was is as they are in this world, it's actually quite comforting.
One of the most laudatory aspects of atheism is that atheist almost never follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion.
When folks make statements like this it is quite evident that they are making statements about themselves rather than atheists.
If God truly didn’t exist then all pretenses to morality or meaning in life could be discarded in favor of hedonism or nihilism.
Not true in the very least; as I noted on my blog yesterday, alternatives include neither nihilism or gnossis.
It is interesting to me, as a Buddhist, that the straw-men most often created for Buddhists by apologists is either nihilism or pantheism. But I digress.
Very simply put, your god of the ultimate gap need not be appealed to in order to recognize the very simplest of laws that any 3 year old can understand: there are ways to cause suffering and harm, and there are ways to avoid suffering and harm, and there are things to do when there is suffering and harm to make things better.
If we were to have a personal, intimate relationship with a fellow human and then begin to doubt their existence we would have reason to question our sanity.
The difference being, of course, that in the one case there is evidence from the senses, and in the other there is simply not only none, but also narratives from others whose very day-to-day existence contradicts that existence. The infidel is a scandal to the exclusivist believer, and that is why evangelization is psychologically necessary. It is also why one has to try to exorcise the demons of doubt at all cost, despite the ultimate futility of doing so.
In fact, this stance I'd maintain is itself an idolatry; it is the ultimate denial of how we exist as human beings, "seeing as through a glass darkly," as somebody said. And yes, I know exactly who said that.
Harsh words, I know (I can just imagine the response- "No, it's because we're commanded to!")
Joe: I love this blog site of yours and offer congratulation on your efforts. I have only one suggestion to improve it somewhat. C S Lewis, the man whom Christ used to bring me and countless others to himself, was an extremely intelligent philosopher and thinker, which you are also, as is obvious in your postings. However, not everyone who comes to this blog site is a college grad with a doctorate in philosophy. Sometimes I read one of your postings and I simply shake my head and ask, "What the heck is Joe talking about?!" When one reads C S Lewis one finds that his genius is enhanced by his ability to talk to the common man and still get his points across with great clarity.
Joe, God bless you and your efforts but please use less 50 cent words or at least give us a built in dictionary!!! Thanks!
Great though the work of Lewis is, I'm unsure that his work evidenced the kind of conceptual sophistication found here. Joe (hope you mind that I call you that even though we haven't been introduced) has obviously trained in philosophy and knows the current state of the discipline well. To make a genuine contribution to that debate (and this seems part of Joe's intent) requires that one write as he does.
Of course this leaves the issue of what to do about those who are philosophically unversed. Perhaps there could be a series of primer articles that would prepare the way for the more difficult material.
Joe:
As we can see, different beliefs about ontology lead us to different starting points for epistemology. The stumbling point, in my opinion, is that many Christians fall for the nonsensical notion that most premises are so interchangeable that they can generally lead to the same basic conclusions. In the absence of 100% certainty, they would argue, we are justified in doubting, or at least being sympathetic to doubts, about certain truth claims, such as the existence of God.
Will you elaborate? Maybe I've missed your point entirely, but I don't see how less than 100% certainty doesn't lead to at least some percentage of doubt. Otherwise, what is certainty?
Joe wrote:
This is an extreme confusion of the concept of "abstract." Sorry, you are way off the mark here. Physicalists will claim that your thoughts have a physical basis in the workings of your brain, but not that you can not think of abstract things.
Again, this is a similarly bizarre notion that flies in the face of common evidence: millions of atheists and Buddhists (among others) who are neither hedonists nor nihilist.
While in general I applaud your efforts as an amature philosopher, Joe, in the face of Roger's and Franklin's laudatory comments about your philosophical skills and use of big words, perhaps you should post a disclaimer of some kind.
mumon, one thought... you said:
"Very simply put, your god of the ultimate gap need not be appealed to in order to recognize the very simplest of laws that any 3 year old can understand: there are ways to cause suffering and harm, and there are ways to avoid suffering and harm, and there are things to do when there is suffering and harm to make things better"
And to some extent that is true, depending on the abilities of the three year old. But they do not understand these things without being taught. Consistent kindness and fair play are not inherent traits in children...Trust me - I'm knee deep in toddlerville - I know! We have to teach them moral behavior - and we had to be taught it - and back the chain goes. The standards for what constitutes good and moral behavior have to come from somewhere... and it surely wasn't a three year old.
Joe, after posts as good and esoteric as this, I am shamed from attempting to post any more on my own xian blog - I mean, who can keep up with such stuff?
Heh, just kidding, I will keep posting, but would you stop setting the bar so high for the rest of us?
Roger et al, let me bring a practical aspect to this.
If evangelicals are going to take part in ecology, for instance, why they do it must proceed what is done. And Who they are doing it for (Jesus) and their relationship with him is ultimately the answer to the "why" question.
See for instance http://enviroguy.blogspot.com/2005/03/ecumenical-ecologist.html
Or as Josh McDowell puts it so often, "It's not the rules that should drive our behavior as Christians, it's the relationship."
Grace and peace,
db
PGEpps said:
What is needed is neither an anthropocentric theory of being (ontology) nor an anthropocentric theory of knowing (epistemology), but a repentance of anthropocentrism caused by an encounter with revelation from God, and faith in that God so revealed--i.e., a response which *assumes* the God exists, and that the God wishes to be known.
That cannot be reached, established, or defended from any anthropocentric grounds, be they ontological or epistemological; and that is why the epistemic goals of modernism fail, inevitably, to avoid their untangling by the ontological insurgency of postmodernism.
Van Til called it Presuppositional Apologetics, and among other things he claimed that the very fact that God can be conceived of is proof that He exists. In essence, this system says man cannot objectively consider the existence of God, and that the claim of objectivity, with its demand for empirical evidence, is impertinent by nature.
Simply put, Romans 1:19,20 shows the lovely irony that atheists do not exist. We all know in our knowers, and thus unconditional surrender is the only acceptable response.
Joe,
Pretty good stuff. A couple of comments.
Does this really apply to a lot of Christians? It's odd to read about this on your blog as this is not something ive ever really heard of before. Are there Christians out there who really do doubt the existence of God? How strange.
I've heard of Christians who doubt God's word, or who doubt the Bible, or who have doubt about the message they have received, but God's existence?
I'm a doubter, or skeptic, when people tell me things that God wants of me. I've become convinced that the Lord has given me his message through the Bible and that through study, prayer and communion with other Christians, I can know God's will in my life. But I understand others who doubt the knowledge of His will for their own lives.
What I wouldn't understand is how they could doubt his very existence.
Is that really happening?
My other thought was about C.S. Lewis. I'm not sure how anyone can say that Joe is harder to comprehend than C.S. Lewis. If you're referring to Mere Christianity, alright, i'll give you that one. But that wasn't really written by C.S. Lewis so much as it was a radio address transcribed into a book.
Try reading The Problem of Pain, or the Abolition of Man. Those books give me great headaches trying to slog through!
@Eric & Lisa-- Heck, you think Problem of Pain is tough (I'd argue Lewis is still being pretty non-technical in those--if they're difficult, it's often because his interlocutors are now more than half a century away from us, so we don't know the "other half" of his arguments)--try his critical work, like The Discarded Image or The Allegory of Love. That's the stuff he did as a professional lit scholar, and while his capacity for perspicuity never abandons him, he does tangle with some pretty darn complicated stuff.
@Jim--I have, of course, certain reservations about elements of Van Til's approach, but I think he's right on this most memorable of points. Other elaborations I've encountered, though I do not claim to have studied them out in depth (that not being my row to hoe, as it were), include Polanyi's concept of "tacit knowledge" and Plantinga's discussion of "properly basic" truths. John Frame has an excellent book on this, too, whose title escapes me at the moment.
There are lots and lots of alternatives to foundationalism, empiricism, or structuralism, and yet there is only one frame of reference with which we have to do--the Lord's. We must repent what (in a shocking moment of agreement with mumon, by way of J. Hillis Miller) I can only call an idolatry of logos--the belief that the rational, verbal form of truth that we utter can be autonomous, can have truth in itself instead of in its Speaker's authority and infallibility. That begins in the church, folks--we have a lot of baggage to unload, that we may more effectively speak the Gospel in an age where the baggage is no longer invisible to the rest of the world, but has become an obvious barrier to the Truth.
Cheers,
PGE
blestwithsons
But they do not understand these things without being taught. Consistent kindness and fair play are not inherent traits in children...Trust me - I'm knee deep in toddlerville - I know! We have to teach them moral behavior - and we had to be taught it - and back the chain goes. The standards for what constitutes good and moral behavior have to come from somewhere... and it surely wasn't a three year old.
Indeed they do and indeed it does.
But my explanation as to "where it comes from" to many, may seem sadly pedestrian: it comes from us and I mean by that anybody who meets the three year old. This is certainly most immedately true: whether you want to show the love of Jesus or the compassion of Quan Yin to that three year old, it is done moment to moment, continually, in every moment we are together with that three year old.
So we have to watch him carefully, and above all, practice ourselves.
Is that behaviorism? Or a spiritual exercise?
As my physics professor said when I questioned about some aspect as to why charge was a property of atomic particles (or sub-particles), I'd answer: "I don't really care; I'm a plumber." IOW, to me, its more important (and energy consuming!) to work with the three year old than to try to construct a lofty metaphysic (whether naturalist or "physicalist" or otherwise). This by the way, is probably the stance most evolutionary biologists take as well.
However, I treat the issue as a spirtual exercise, but more like tennis than mathematics.
Joe,
How do we know God exists?
Because we have a relationship with Jesus.
And how do we know Jesus is God?
Because he told us, and because he rose from the dead.
And how do we know Jesus rose from the dead?
It's all in the Bible.
And why do we believe the Bible?
Because it's the Word of God.
And how do we know it's the Word of God?
Well if it's not, we would have to come to absurd and frightening conclusions about the nature of our existence. Moreover, all pretenses to morality or meaning in life could be discarded in favor of hedonism or nihilism. Although, it's of course true that belief is not a prerequisite for being subject to God’s natural law.
And haven't you ever read Psalm 14?:
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
No really, quit kidding around Joe, how do we know the Bible is the Word of God?
I'm not kidding.
Oh, I see... Thanks.
__________________________________________________
Joe, in other comment threads I've made a point of emphasizing how much I respect you, the work you do, and the great weblog you have here.
But your dismissive attitude towards doubt is really hard for me to understand.
You linked to Psalm 14 at the end of your post. Apparently you endorse the idea that unbelievers are corrupt, their deeds are vile, and there is none who does good.
Joe, I am not trying to be dismissive of Christianity, or religious faith, or the intellectual project you have taken on of defending Christianity. But if you really believe that unbelievers are any more corrupt, vile, and incapable of doing good than believers, than I am forced to conclude that you are a bigot.
And if you insist on being a bigot, then you undermining any claim you have to be taken seriously, by believer and unbeliever alike.
Shame on you.
Did I miss the post where Joe justifies his project of picking the most extreme position to hold up against his own? Why focus so deeply on the physicalists? How many of them really exist? I think that Dewey's naturalist idealism is a lot closer to the mainstream of secular thought. He would include any imaginitive thought, abstract or otherwise, as really existing in our imagination. Joe's apologetic challenge would be taken a lot more seriously if he stopped using the few really-existing, somewhat pathetic physicalists as a strawhorse and engaged with some of the thinkers who have levied focused, engaged, even Christian criticisms at his brand of the faith.
Joe writes: "My contention is that until we can understand why we exist and how our existence came into being, we cannot move on to establishing a satisfactory foundation for how we can know."
My contention is that Joe exists as a Christian not because Christianity is the truth (although I'm willing to concede that he is justified in believing so) but primarily because he was raised in a Christian household and environment. My contention is that this is how Joe's Christian faith came into being. This could probably be shown quantitatively by comparing the percentages of people raised in christian households and people raised in households of heterogenous religious backgrounds who went on to the serious seeking of truth and see who wind up Christians. I would venture to guess that you're much more likely to wind up a christian if your parents were a christian than if you seriously devote yourself to the seeking of truth, regardless of your faith background.
Why are there so many Christian parents? It's just as likely, objectively, that they the result of Christians skill, throughout history, with the sword and the gun as it is the pre-ordained outcome of the will of the One True God.
Any serious attempt to justify the claims of christianity as universally true runs into the paradox of Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth (three Christians whom Joe would do well to engage further) and can proceed no further without Catholic iconoclasm.
Finally, Joe seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the widespread move to drive a wedge between justification of beliefs and the objective truth of beliefs. He might want to read Radical Interpretation in Religion, N.K. Frankenberry, ed. in order to catch up.
Tyler,
I'm a philosopher by trade, and a certain sort of physicalism is prevalent among contemporary philosophers. I think it's quite common as well among scientists.
About your last comment: do you mean to say simply that a belief can be justified but not true? That's obvious, and has been remarked on as early as Plato. Perhaps you mean that a belief can be justified but yet not constitute knowledge. That was known by Plato as well and indeed follows from the claim that a belief can be justified but not true, for if I really do know a thing it must be true.
I really do doubt that Joe is guilty of any sort of illegitimate conflation here. And I really think it unlikely that he has to catch up about these really quite basic distinctions.
Tyler,
In my experience God doesn't allow children to reach adulthood without the faith of their parents being challenged and turned into their own faith. I have never said this to a 25 year old christian without it being agreed to.
God expects you to own it for yourself - and will present you whatever challenges are necessary to see to it that you do.
Joe,
I always find your posts mind stretching from the standpoint that I am neither a professional philosopher nor apologist - I'm just a Christian trying to see the world as God sees it. I usually end my reading of your more substantive posts by saying, "Huh?"
Discussing these things, however, is interesting to me because I like to understand how other worldviews exist and hold together. And, I get about as much from your posts as I do from the angry comments sent to you by those holding the opposing viewpoints. Why they’re angry, I don’t know, but I suspect it has something to do with being challenged. And we’re the close-minded ones! I don’t get angry when someone calls Christianity a bunch of nonsense – usually with profanity thrown in there to spice it up – I just say, “Thanks for the opinion and have a nice eternity.” It’s hard to have a rational discussion with someone yelling at the top of their voice and hands covering their ears.
I, too (like Eric & Lisa), have a hard time believing that many Christians doubt the existence of God. Perhaps you're referring to Christians that attend liberal churches who have abandoned the Bible altogether. It's easy for me to see how anyone could begin to doubt the existence of God when they rarely, if ever, open their Bible.
You are correct that most worldviews do not follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion. So, in answer to one of the comments suggesting that you are a bigot, Matthew Goggins obviously hasn't given Psalm 14 more than a cursory glance. The Hebrew word translated fool refers to someone who is morally deficient and that, by definition, means that they are corrupt, vile and incapable of doing good. Also, by judging you – with his disclaimer, of course – isn’t he, by definition, that which he is calling you?
Here’s the bottom line for me. All of us believe strongly in our worldview be it Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, whatever. And we all think we are correct in our beliefs and, to one extent or another, that others are wrong. In the end, we’ll find out who was right and who was wrong. I’d rather be sitting in Jesus’ camp than in theirs.
So, keep up the good work – even though it’s quite confusing sometimes – and God Bless.
Matt
Matt DeFrees,
Thank you for your civil response. Aside from calling me a bigot, which under the circumstances is a natural and understandable reaction, your reply is measured and thoughtful.
But I invite you to take a closer look at what Joe actually wrote.
Look in particular at the last two lines of his post:
I believe in submitting to scripture and am willing to hear where I have misunderstood God’s word. In the meantime, I’m left with the reminder that the Bible has a name for people who question the existence of their Creator: fools.
If you click on the link for the word "fools", you get the text of Psalm 14, Verse 1, which I quoted in my last comment above:
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Now Matt, you write,
The Hebrew word translated fool refers to someone who is morally deficient and that, by definition, means that they are corrupt, vile and incapable of doing good.
You seem to be making the point that Joe doesn't think unbelievers are morally deficient (moral fools) -- he only believes that the morally deficient (moral fools) are the ones who are likely to reject belief in God.
Well, Matt, you are certainly correct that there is more than one way to do an exegesis of Psalm 14.
For example, take a look at Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
In Chapter 3, Verse 9, Paul writes:
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
In other words, C. S. Lewis is right, and we are all unworthy in the eyes of the Lord.
Paul continues, in Verses 10, 11, and 12, by quoting Psalm 14, Verses 1, 2, and 3, in support of his negative evaluation of the character of all men. That's right, the same verse that Joe is quoting to put down unbelievers vis-a-vis believers is the very verse that Paul uses to whale on everybody.
Here is Paul's cutting-and-pasting of Psalm 14 (from the Holy Bible, the Authorized King James Version, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 3, Verses 10, 11, 12):
As it is written [in Psalm 14], There is none righteous, no, not one.
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
I personally think Joe's exegesis is more apt than the Apostle Paul's. But the point is moot: I am not accusing Psalm 14 of being bigoted, I am accusing Joe. And Joe's words are clear:
In the meantime, I’m left with the reminder that the Bible has a name for people who question the existence of their Creator: fools.
Matt, please be aware that this is the third or fourth time in less than two weeks that I have brought to Joe's attention that his attitude towards doubters and unbelievers might be a bit less charitable than it ought to be.
I choose my words carefully, and I do not take cheap shots.
Joe is not guilty of expressing himself sloppily in an isolated slip-up. He has demonstrated a clear and convincing pattern of claiming that doubters and unbelievers are morally and spiritually challenged folk who are probably irrational on some level, and who are likely to go to hell.
So why is that stance bigoted?
Well bigoted means different things to different people. If you say, "I like the Beatles, and I hate disco" to some people, they will think you are bigoted.
What I mean by "bigot" or "bigoted" is pretty straightforward. It means intolerant and prejudiced.
If Joe, or anyone else, doesn't know anything about a person, other than that the person is an unbeliever, but he thinks the unbeliever must be bad, stupid, and damned, then Joe is guilty of holding a bigoted attitude towards that person.
Joe is being intolerant towards that person by dismissing that person's reasonably held beliefs. And he is also being prejudiced towards that person, by judging him by his lack of faith, rather than by judging his actual intellect or character. Intolerant + prejudiced = bigoted.
Matt, you write,
Also, by judging you – with his disclaimer, of course – isn’t [Matthew], by definition, that which he is calling you?
Am I intolerant? Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance!
Am I prejudiced? No, I have made an effort over the past few days to dialogue with sincere respect with our blog-master Joe. My charge is quite specific, and I do not presume to be the judge of an indictment that I myself have authored. Only Joe can look into his heart and decide for himself if my charge reflects what he truly believes. I am willing to judge his writings, but not the state of his soul.
If Joe truly believes what he has said, and if I have not misinterpreted it in some way, then Joe is acting like a bigot.
It gives me no pleasure to say this. I say it only to reduce any negative influence his bigotry might have on others, and hopefully to sway Joe's heart as well.
In all other respects, I consider Joe to be my brother, a fellow seeker of the truth, and I wish him success and all the best.
Hey Matthew,
I think Joe is half-right; and so are you (all emphasis mine):
Notice, in Baker's mind he is talking about the "certain" atheist, or strong agnostic - someone leaving God totally out of his thinking and actions. Henry views it differently, looking at the phrase "in his heart" as an indication that he will not express his disbelief outloud - or even settle the issue in his intellect:The issue of God is critical. If you are secretly hoping God doesn't exist so that you can CONTINUE TO SIN and silence your conscience - you are a fool. If you keep from saying it outloud, or even examining it in your mind, for fear you will be forced to accept God's existence - and therefore curb your sin - you are a fool. So, doubt (not belief against) spoken aloud, and examined mentally, and not used as an excuse to continue in sin - would not fall under Henry's definition of fool.
Baker would say if your mind is closed, and you act without any thought of God and eternal consequences you are a fool. I agree. But again, this isn't doubt (it is certainty) spoken and examined.
Neither of these commentators would say that a doubter who is actively seeking to know is a fool - and if Joe implied this he is wrong I believe. Joe made it clear, however, that this whole post applied to a believer who once knew God existed and now doubted God existed. This is a "Henry" moment to me: so does this doubter express his doubts, seek wisdom, think it out, and continue to act as if God did exist even though he doubts; or does he hide this in his heart, hoping it is true, and use it to curb his conscience and excuse sin?
A crisis of faith is a terrible thing - and can put us on the edge of foolishness
Here was another interesting comment by Charles Spurgeon:
Oh, and it is important to note which God is doubted:
PGE -- You cannot inquire into epistemology without establishing a theory of beings; and you cannot begin to think about the existence and nature of beings without first considering what things in your skull are truths about being and what are fakes.
In my poor attempt at an explanation I failed to clarify the distinction between using reason (which is an epistemic action) and developing an epistemology (coming to a conclusion about how we can know). You are quite right that we cannot even know that we are beings unless, of course, we can know things. What I should have said is that we can’t truly understand how and what can be known until we understand what kind of Beings we are.
Roger -- I have only one suggestion to improve it somewhat. C S Lewis, the man whom Christ used to bring me and countless others to himself, was an extremely intelligent philosopher and thinker, which you are also, as is obvious in your postings. However, not everyone who comes to this blog site is a college grad with a doctorate in philosophy. Sometimes I read one of your postings and I simply shake my head and ask, "What the heck is Joe talking about?!" When one reads C S Lewis one finds that his genius is enhanced by his ability to talk to the common man and still get his points across with great clarity.
Good point. Unfortunately, unlike Lewis I’m not intelligent enough to write clearly. But I will try to lay off the jargon (which is one of my own pet peeves).
Brandon -- Will you elaborate? Maybe I've missed your point entirely, but I don't see how less than 100% certainty doesn't lead to at least some percentage of doubt. Otherwise, what is certainty?
That’s an excellent question and one that I should take up in a future post. For now, though, let me see if I can explain what I mean.
While I could be wrong, I think it is a mistake to define “doubt” as “the absence of certainty.” For example, I am not 100% certain that you exist. I do think I have sufficient evidence to make that assumption and the probability of your existence is likely very high, say 98%. Does that mean that I have a 2% doubt in your existence? I suppose we might put it that way but I don’t think that is how people really think.
Levels of certitude and doubt are, I think, similar to gaseous state. Just as a gas such as nitrogen or oxygen fills up to expand the space of a room, our certainty fills up the space of a belief once it hits a tipping point (51%?). Doubt, on the other hand, fills up the space in the same way and causes a belief to be almost completely tenuous. (I’m referring to more advanced and complex beliefs rather than simple ones where we simply lack enough information to be certain.)
AndyS -- This is an extreme confusion of the concept of "abstract." Sorry, you are way off the mark here. Physicalists will claim that your thoughts have a physical basis in the workings of your brain, but not that you can not think of abstract things.
Um, yeah. That is simply a restatement of what I said. Physicalists do not belief in abstract things because abstractions are non-physical.
Again, this is a similarly bizarre notion that flies in the face of common evidence: millions of atheists and Buddhists (among others) who are neither hedonists nor nihilist.
Right. But that does not touch on my point that they have no reason – based on the logical conclusions of their premises – for not living in such a way. Obviously one of the primary reasons they do not become hedonists or nihilists is because the natural law really does exist and commands recognition whether someone claims to believe in it or not.
While in general I applaud your efforts as an amature philosopher, Joe, in the face of Roger's and Franklin's laudatory comments about your philosophical skills and use of big words, perhaps you should post a disclaimer of some kind.
Disclaimer: My views on philosophy – like every other topic I write about - should be taken cum grano salis. The only resemblance I have to any real philosophers (either living or dead) is to Socrates. Like that great sage I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. (Oh, and I’m also homely like Socrates so I guess there is that too.)
Eric and Lisa -- Does this really apply to a lot of Christians? It's odd to read about this on your blog as this is not something ive ever really heard of before. Are there Christians out there who really do doubt the existence of God? How strange.
Full on doubting God’s existence is probably not common among Christians. But I’m sure that outside of the evangelical camp that it becomes a more dominant (and acceptable theme). For example, I wrote a few weeks ago about the blogger “Real Live Preacher” who claims that it doesn’t matter if we believe that God exists. Strange indeed.
Matthew -- [Questioner] How do we know God exists?
[Joe’s Presumed Response] Because we have a relationship with Jesus.
Uh, huh. Isn’t that how we know that most people exist?
[questioner] And how do we know Jesus is God?
[Joe’s Presumed Response] Because he told us, and because he rose from the dead.
Yep.
[questioner] And how do we know Jesus rose from the dead?
[Joe’s Presumed Response] It's all in the Bible.
Yes, like any historical incident, we either trust the witnesses who were there at the time – or we don’t. In this case, I do.
[questioner] And why do we believe the Bible?
[Joe’s Presumed Response] Because it's the Word of God.
And it’s also a remarkably reliable historical document.
[questioner] And how do we know it's the Word of God?
[Joe’s Presumed Response] Well if it's not, we would have to come to absurd and frightening conclusions about the nature of our existence. Moreover, all pretenses to morality or meaning in life could be discarded in favor of hedonism or nihilism. Although, it's of course true that belief is not a prerequisite for being subject to God’s natural law.
Er, not quite. We know it’s the Word of God because God (in the form of the Holy Spirit) provides confirmation that, yes indeed, it is His word.
[questioner] No really, quit kidding around Joe, how do we know the Bible is the Word of God?
[Joe’s Presumed Response] I'm not kidding.
Let me turn the question around and ask you: If the Bible is the Word of God, how would we know?
But your dismissive attitude towards doubt is really hard for me to understand.
I’m dismissive about a lot of things but doubt isn’t one of them. Doubt (as it pertains to the existence of God) is not something to be taken lightly but a regrettable calcification of the will.
You linked to Psalm 14 at the end of your post. Apparently you endorse the idea that unbelievers are corrupt, their deeds are vile, and there is none who does good.
Unbelievers are corrupt, their deeds are vile, and there is none who does good. Sadly, the same holds true for believers as well. The only difference is that we recognize that fact.
But if you really believe that unbelievers are any more corrupt, vile, and incapable of doing good than believers, than I am forced to conclude that you are a bigot.
No, I don’t think they are more corrupt and vile but they are incapable of changing that fact since they don’t acknowledge it.
Tyler -- Did I miss the post where Joe justifies his project of picking the most extreme position to hold up against his own? Why focus so deeply on the physicalists?
Mainly because the stark contrast highlights the difference between the two views.
How many of them really exist?
Like Franklin pointed out, more than you might think. The problem is that the common man who might agree with the dominant Western naturalist view has no idea what it entails.
My contention is that Joe exists as a Christian not because Christianity is the truth (although I'm willing to concede that he is justified in believing so) but primarily because he was raised in a Christian household and environment.
If by exist, you mean conceived by parents who just happen to be Christians then you are right.
My contention is that this is how Joe's Christian faith came into being. This could probably be shown quantitatively by comparing the percentages of people raised in christian households and people raised in households of heterogenous religious backgrounds who went on to the serious seeking of truth and see who wind up Christians. I would venture to guess that you're much more likely to wind up a christian if your parents were a christian than if you seriously devote yourself to the seeking of truth, regardless of your faith background.
I’m sure it is more likely that people who are raised in Christian homes are more likely to recognize the truth of Christianity. But I’m not sure what that has to do with anything? Either its true or it isn’t. Where I got the initial exposure to the claim appears to be irrelevant to its veracity.
Why are there so many Christian parents? It's just as likely, objectively, that they the result of Christians skill, throughout history, with the sword and the gun as it is the pre-ordained outcome of the will of the One True God.
I don’t know about that. Islam has been a lot more skilled with the “sword and the gun” and we don’t see a great deal of Muslim parents. Also, considering that most of the violence in Christendom happened in Europe, how can we explain the predominance of secularism in those countries?
Any serious attempt to justify the claims of christianity as universally true runs into the paradox of Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth (three Christians whom Joe would do well to engage further) and can proceed no further without Catholic iconoclasm.
Perhaps I do need to engage those thinkers again for I never realized that they didn’t think that Christianity is universally true.
Matt -- I usually end my reading of your more substantive posts by saying, "Huh?"
You’re not alone. I usually have the same reaction when I go back and read what I wrote.
Matthew You seem to be making the point that Joe doesn't think unbelievers are morally deficient (moral fools) -- he only believes that the morally deficient (moral fools) are the ones who are likely to reject belief in God.
No, we are all morally deficient. Unbelievers just manifest a specific deficiency.
Joe is not guilty of expressing himself sloppily in an isolated slip-up. He has demonstrated a clear and convincing pattern of claiming that doubters and unbelievers are morally and spiritually challenged folk who are probably irrational on some level, and who are likely to go to hell.
Let me clear up a few points: (a) Yes, doubters and unbelievers are morally and spiritually challenged. That does not mean that they are more morally and spiritually challenged than believers but they do have that extra hurdle to cross. (b) Most doubts have nothing to do with the intellect so it isn’t a matter of being “irrational.” If everyone were basing their beliefs purely on reason than everyone would believe because the expected payoff would be the rational choice (see: Pascal’s Wager). The fact that they don’t believe is a matter of the will, not the intellect. (c) Yes, unbelievers are likely to go to hell because heaven is the place where those who choose to be with God will spend eternity. You seem to think that God should force them to be with him even after they refused to accept him of their own free choice. God is what he is. If he is not the kind of Being you’d want to spend eternity with then wouldn’t you rather be in hell?
What I mean by "bigot" or "bigoted" is pretty straightforward. It means intolerant and prejudiced.
So it is intolerant to not embrace your particular view of tolerance?
If Joe, or anyone else, doesn't know anything about a person, other than that the person is an unbeliever, but he thinks the unbeliever must be bad, stupid, and damned, then Joe is guilty of holding a bigoted attitude towards that person.
I know their bad because I know they are human. I know they are damned because they claim to be unbelievers. As for stupid, I have to wait for further evidence before I make that judgement. ; )
Joe is being intolerant towards that person by dismissing that person's reasonably held beliefs.
I’m not dismissing them; I just disagree. How is that intolerant? I disagree with the claim that it is morally wrong to eat people too, but does that mean I am “intolerant” toward cannibalism?
Besides, I’m not saying that unbelievers should be burned at the stake. I just saying that they are wrong.
Am I intolerant? Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance!
But you are intolerant of views that differ from your own view of what should be tolerated. By what objective standard should be think that I am a bigot but you are not?
Only Joe can look into his heart and decide for himself if my charge reflects what he truly believes. I am willing to judge his writings, but not the state of his soul.
I think to some degree you could judge the “state of my soul” by what I write. If I said that I enjoyed kicking puppies and biting the heads off kittens I think you’d be perfectly justified in thinking their was something very wrong with my inner state.
If Joe truly believes what he has said, and if I have not misinterpreted it in some way, then Joe is acting like a bigot.
While I do think that to some degree you have misinterpreted what I’ve said, I still think I would peg out the Bigot Meter using your scale. Obviously, I’m not too thrilled at the idea of being considered intolerant and prejudiced. But based on what to my mind is a rather peculiar standard, I would probably fit your definition.
In all other respects, I consider Joe to be my brother, a fellow seeker of the truth, and I wish him success and all the best.
Same here. I haven’t taken offense at anything you’ve written. Obviously, we have profound disagreements on the issues at hand but that does not mean that I find you disagreeable.
@Joe et al, re jargon:
I think the jargon of a particular field is useful, and I appreciate Joe using it. I think sometimes he uses it in a way others (myself included) do not agree to, or perhaps incorrectly, but I think it helps us figure out where he stands in these matters that have been discussed deeply and thoroughly.
My practice, when I can, is *both* to use the jargon-y technical language, in order to satisfy both the precisionists and the guys watching for the "club tie," *and* to share the more pedestrian, concrete analogies that help me grasp those terms quickly and clearly. The analogy is usually subject to re-interpretation, which makes the jargon helpful to those likely to dissect me; but the technical language is off-putting and confusing, so I try to always explain myself in different terms.
I don't think those who know how to use the technical language of a field should be ashamed because C. S. Lewis could do *both* well; they should simply try to emulate his touch for simplification where appropriate, and his awareness of the field (amply demonstrated if you read his academic writing) in those settings where that's better.
Please bear in mind that some of us really do *think* in terms like "the hegemony of technological-democratic culture over our conception of the text" and "the return of the repressed enforces the portrayal of the desired in a morally inverted form" or some such.
That's the way we talk to each other, and think in ourselves, and take notes in the books we read, every single day of our lives. That we have to *really work* to explain ourselves to those who haven't had the same interests or concerns throughout their lives--well, it's not nothing, and we really appreciate it when folks understand that. I do, anyway, and I'm always willing to clarify where I've been obscure or plain obtuse.
Cheers,
PGE
I did imply that Kierkegaard, Barth, and Luther did believe that Christianity isn't universally true, and this is probably wrong. I meant to argue that, at least for Kierkegaard and Barth, the attempt to prove the objective truth of Christianity can't work -- all you can do is justify your own faith. It seems to me that you're trying to prove the universal truth of Christianity, and if you can, more power to you. I don't think its helpful or possible, though -- I've found that the we're-right-they're-wrong attitude has driven people from accepting anything about Christianity as true. I feel that the current state of evangelical apologetics is driving people from Christianity, rather than attracting people to it, and this concerns me greatly. I'm more than willing to concede that I'm a little out of my depth with the some of the philosophical discussions going on, sorry to have gotten snarky.
I meant to argue that, at least for Kierkegaard and Barth, the attempt to prove the objective truth of Christianity can't work -- all you can do is justify your own faith.
While I think both of those great thinkers go too far, I think there is something to that idea. There certainly is a limit to how much we can prove the objective truth of Christianity. Not because it isn’t objectively true but because the human mind cannot “prove” anything with absolute certainty.
It seems to me that you're trying to prove the universal truth of Christianity, and if you can, more power to you.
How I wish I were smart enough to accomplish such a task! Alas, I am not quite that bright.
Instead, I attempt a more modest effort of trying to show (as did Pascal) that unbelief is not a matter of pure reason but of an obstinate will. I can’t argue anyone into belief. But hopefully I can help people recognize that there is something other than thier intellects that prevents them from seeing the universal truths of Christianity.
I don't think its helpful or possible, though -- I've found that the we're-right-they're-wrong attitude has driven people from accepting anything about Christianity as true. I feel that the current state of evangelical apologetics is driving people from Christianity, rather than attracting people to it, and this concerns me greatly.
That’s a good point. The fact is that we are right and they are wrong. Some Christians, though, use this as a bludgeon to beat people away from the faith rather than as a gift to share with others. I don't think there is anything wrong with having faith in the truth of the Gospel. But you are right that our means of sharing that truth can be a hindrance to non-believers.
I'm more than willing to concede that I'm a little out of my depth with the some of the philosophical discussions going on, sorry to have gotten snarky.
There’s nothing wrong with a bit of snarkiness. It is often difficult to convey a gentle humor in this medium so a bit of snarkiness helps convey the point without being overbearing and rude. I suspect that most people don’t take it personally (I certainly don’t.)
Joe,
I have lurked at your site for many months, and I sincerely appreciate all of your efforts. The time you take here, which is very demanding, believe me I have tried, quite unsuccessfully to emulate.
To the comment that you write beyond the depth of some readers, this may be the urging you need to grow learning, and delve into the finer details of your faith or lack thereof. It is a blessing to have your intellectual knowledge challenged, and an opportunity for greater growth. Philosophy, in my humble opinion is not one that requires years of instruction or foreknowledge to attain general, rather than specific understandings. The general being, for the most part, what is dealt with in nearly any open topic.
Joe, I agree with your philosophical discourse on this topic, and readily admit that I am biased. My bias is not as much intellectual, as spiritual, and as a missionary and leader, would flatly dispute the notion that Christians are such, because the belief system has been inbred into them. While catchesim is an important part of childrens and youth instruction. The same is true of adult new believers.
As a witness to the spreading of the Gospel into foreign cultures, where conflicting religious and cultural biases have long been established. Conversions are occurring every day. To the western worlds shame, many of these first generation believers are more devout and faithful. The hardships they endure to practice their faith far outweigh anything we in the west endure. This in my estimation proves as unreasonable those who take the anthropocentric view of faith. The power of the spirit compels the church planters to do their work, not the human centered belief that they are better than the ones they preach and teach.
Joe--
Love your "gaseous state" analogy to faith and doubt. That does indeed seem to be the way the Locke/Hume tradition thought of "judgment," and I think it has merit. Doubt is an intellectual action, not merely a privation.
Cheers,
PGE
Joe,
Thank you for your graciousness and good humor. Your unflagging determination to set me straight is also very impressive.
Joe, in your post you write,
I believe in submitting to scripture and am willing to hear where I have misunderstood God’s word. In the meantime, I’m left with the reminder that the Bible has a name for people who question the existence of their Creator: fools.
Based on your responses to me, you should have written,
In the meantime, I’m left with the reminder that the Bible has a name for people who question the existence of their Creator, and for people who have uncompromising faith in their Creator as well: fools.
However, I think the first version is actually more respresentative of what you truly believe.
Two additional points:
1) Doubt is not a species of calcification of the will.
Undoubtedly, like anything else it could sometimes be a calcification of the will. But the same could be said, with ample justification, of faith.
Doubt is nothing more, and nothing less, than uncertainty.
Doubt is generally a virtue. For the opposite of doubt is not faith, but credulity.
Doubt is not cost free. It can produce indecisiveness, or even despair. But to label doubt as sinful is itself sinful and un-Christian.
2) Should you agree with my intolerance of intolerance?
Look, if you don't want to call yourself a bigot, then you are probably a much better judge of that than I am. I am not going to come to your blog every day and flog that horse into dust.
But here is the heart of my concern.
You have received a special calling to be a teacher or a preacher (I don't know if you preach in person, but you are certainly a virtual preacher).
A teacher is an authority figure with a special duty, like that of a doctor, to do no harm.
If you tell someone who is troubled that doubters and unbelievers are choosing to spend eternity in hell, or that doubt is a calcification of the will in defiance of God's love for us, then you are hurting your charge, and the consequences of that could be very serious.
If you go around instructing people to proselytize weak-willed Christians and unbelievers in a disrespectful and overbearing way, then you contributing to the problem of religious un-enlightenment, and not helping to resolve it.
If you judge others on the basis of their beliefs before getting to be familiar with their character, then you are being sinful and self-defeating as well.
I am not saying that you are guilty of any of these things. But I am sincerely worried that you might be, either now or at some point in the future.
I do know that you are a great teacher, and I have high hopes that you will be able to avoid the pitfalls that I have outlined.
But if any case, I appreciate your honesty, your dedication to the truth, and your openness to criticism. I have just as many problems I need to attend to as anyone else here, so please don't interpret my pontificating as an attack on your character.
Thanks again, all the best.
Pgepps,
I too liked Joe's gas-filling-the-empty-room analogy of faith and doubt. It is a very clever and apt way of looking at things.